Debates against "debating" makes one a proponent of the entity to which one is opposed (i.e. "debating").MotorCade said:Well, first let me add a disclaimer that I am not enthused about political debates on here
We're bombarded with so many nefarious "BIG" institutions these days, it's easy to lose understanding of what the term really means. "BIG" has become a term of infamy, relating to the Goliath that the "little guy" fears, embodying those things he has no control over. "BIG" government isn't an entity that should be feared, though... it is merely the incorporation of smaller governmental entities into one homologous whole.MotorCade said:I'd rather not have big government.
To sell stock, someone has to buy it. The ones who were hurt were the ones who bought the stock that she sold. The amount wasn't huge and the damage miniscule compared to the likes of Ken Lay, but it was illegal and someone did get hurt.mikester said:She got out, before the rest and it was unfair. But noone was really hurt by her actions, as I understand it.
I was making a general point. I never even joined the political debate. You, on the other hand, said you were against such debates in this context and then proceeded to join this one, which is what my point was about, more or less.MotorCade said:First of all, I never said I was against debating. I said I get tired of political debates, and I don't think this should be the place for them. Join a political forum and debate to your hearts content. Unless the content is car related politics, it's irritating to me, (and possibly others) on here.
My issue isn't with your point. I actually agree with it. My issue is with the overuse and misuse of the word "BIG" in general. Although it may be applicable in the case of your argument, the word is unwittingly applied by many liberals to any significant entity perceived as overtly capitalistic (i.e. "bad").MotorCade said:And as far as BIG government goes, let me clarify, since you're taking issue with my choice of words.